The contemporary concept simply refers to individuals of certain Jewish ancestry or heritage, who are adherents of some form of Christianity, which may or may not incorporate some Jewish customs. This includes converts from Judaism to Christianity and ethnic Jews who for one reason or another had not been raised within Judaism.

Council of Jerusalem

According to Acts 15,[14] the Council of Jerusalem, customarily believed to have been led by James the Just, determined that Religious male circumcision (assumed by some[who?] to signify conversion to Judaism) should not be required of Gentile followers of Jesus, only basic abstentions: avoidance of "pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood" (KJV, Acts 15:20, also Genesis 11:1-8 (idolatry), 9:20 (sexual depravity), 9:5 (cruelty to animals), 9:3-4 (abstention from blood)). The basis for these prohibitions is not detailed in Acts 15:21, which states only: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day", stressing that they are Mosaic Commandments which Gentiles must pay attention to. Many, beginning with Augustine of Hippo[15] consider the consensus emphasised the four stipulations based on the Noahide Laws stated in Genesis, and applicable to all people (Noah's descendants after the Flood). On the other hand some modern scholars[16] reject the connection to Noahide Law (Genesis 9) and instead see Lev 17-18 (see also Leviticus 18) as the basis. Some modern Christians[who?] are also unclear as to whether this meant that this Apostolic Decree in some way still applies to them or merely that the requirements were imposed to facilitate common participation by Gentiles in the community of Jesus' followers (which at that time included Jewish Christians), so as to remind the Jewish followers of Jesus to uphold those Laws applicable to them (i.e. the full Mosaic Laws). According to Karl Josef von Hefele, the Apostolic Decree is still observed today by the Greek Orthodox[17]. See also Biblical law in Christianity, Expounding of the Law, and Noahidism.

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?

”

However, Barnabas, Paul's partner up till then, sided with Peter.[20][21] Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers: The Incident at Antioch[22] claims: "St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke." however, L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity[23] claims: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return." See also Incident at Antioch and Pauline Christianity. Scholar James D. G. Dunn, who coined the phrase "New Perspective on Paul", has proposed that Peter was the bridge-man (i.e. the pontifex maximus) between the two other "prominent leading figures" of early Christianity: Paul and James the Just.[24]

"...being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles."

Circumcision controversy

A common interpretation[who?] of the circumcision controversy of the New Testament was that it was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism. However, the Halakha of Rabbinic Judaism was still under development at this time, as the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus[30] notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakha was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." This controversy was fought largely between opposing groups of Christians who were themselves ethnically Jewish. According to this interpretation, those who felt that conversion to Judaism was a prerequisite for Church membership were eventually condemned by Paul as "Judaizing teachers".

An existing community that still maintain their Jewish traditions are the Knananites. The Knanaya, who are an endogamous sub-ethnic group among the Syrian Malabar Nasrani are the descendants of early Jewish Christian settlers who arrived in Kerala in A.D 345. Although affiliated with a variety of Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox denominations, they have remained a cohesive community, shunning intermarriage with outsiders (but not with fellow-Knanaya of other denominations).

Contemporary movements: Jewish Christians, Messianic Jews, Ebionites

There are at least two varieties of syncretisms between Judaism and Christianity: syncretisms that emphasize Christianity (Jewish Christians) and syncretisms focusing on Judaism (Messianic Jews). By contrast, modern Ebionism attempts to continue the beliefs and practices of Jesus' early Jewish followers, before the advent of Saint Paul's doctrines, and hence does not follow the Christian canon (which it considers a Graeco-Roman religion).

"Jewish Christians" is sometimes used as a contemporary term in respect of persons who are ethnically Jewish but who have become part of a "mainstream" Christian group which is not predominantly based on an appeal to Jewish ethnicity or the Law of Moses. They are mostly members of Protestant and Catholic congregations, usually are not strict about observing the Laws of Moses, including Kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) or the Sabbath, and are generally assimilated culturally into the Christian mainstream, although they retain a strong sense of their Jewish identity which they, like Messianic Jews, strongly desire to pass on to their children. In Israel, there is a growing population of Orthodox Christians who are of Jewish descent and conduct their worship mostly in Hebrew (the most prominent language in Israel, as well as the official language). The term could thus be used, for example, of Arnold Fruchtenbaum, the founder of Ariel Ministries[33].

This term is used as a contrast to Messianic Jews, many of whom are ethnic Jews who adhere to a religion in which Christian belief (usually evangelical) is generally grafted onto Jewish ritual which would, to outsiders at least, typically resemble Judaism more than Christianity. Messianic Jews consider their primary identity to be "Jewish" and belief in Jesus to be the logical conclusion of their "Jewishness". They try to structure their worship according to Jewish norms, they circumcise their sons and are stricter about Torah observance, including observance of Sabbath and Kosher dietary laws. Many (but by no means all) do not use the label "Christian" to describe themselves, however they do recognize the Christian New Testament as holy scripture. The boundary between the two movements is blurred, but the differences between the two movements are such that it may not be fair to treat them as one (cf. Baptists and Methodists, for example). Additionally, there is a few organizations to support Messianic Jews who wish to remain faithful to Torah, most notably the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations and the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council[34].

The term Ebionites derives from the HebrewEvyonim, meaning "the Poor Ones",[35][36] which has parallels in the Psalms and the self-given term of pious Jewish circles.[37][38] The term "the poor" was probably one of several designations for the early followers of Jesus - a reference to their material as well their religious poverty.[35][39][40] Following the advent of Pauline Christianity and schisms with that early Christian Church, the graecized Hebrew term "Ebionite" was applied exclusively to Jewish Christians separated from the developing Pauline Christianity. Christian Church father Origen (185 - 254 CE), says "for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."[41][42]Tertullian inaccurately derived the name from a fictional heresiarch called Ebion.[35][37]. Modern Ebionites attempt to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of these ancient Ebionites, in particular as they were between the time of Jesus' ministry, and during the leadership of James the Just (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jesus movement from Jesus' death until 62CE), and up until the last Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement, in 135 CE (as reported by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica). As their ancient counterparts, modern Ebionites recognize only the Torah as scripture, although they also assign scriptural status to parts of the Gospel of Matthew (which according to Christian Church fathers, was originally written in Hebrew (in shorter form than the current version of Christian canon). They reject the Constantinian Nicene Creed and its statement of God as a Trinity and Jesus as equal to God. They also reject Saint Paul in general, and specifically his concept of atonement by blood and his idea that following Jesus makes the Torah Laws (especially ritual Law) unnecessary.

References

Notes

↑McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1405108991. Page 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah. Unless males were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1)."

↑Catholic Encyclopedia: Cornelius: "The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the Early Church. The gates of the Church, within which thus far only those who were circumcised and observed the Law of Moses had been admitted, were now thrown open to the uncircumcised Gentiles without the obligation of submitting to the Jewish ceremonial laws."

↑Karl Josef von Hefele's commentary on canon II of Gangra notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, [340] the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."

↑The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 32, page 577, by James D. G. Dunn: "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked. John might have served as such a figure of the center holding together the extremes, but if the writings linked with his name are at all indicative of his own stance he was too much of an individualist to provide such a rallying point. Others could link the developing new religion more firmly to its founding events and to Jesus himself. But none of them, including the rest of the twelve, seem to have played any role of continuing significance for the whole sweep of Christianity—though James the brother of John might have proved an exception had he been spared." [Italics original]